Benefits of knowledge-based interprofessional communication skills training in medical undergraduate education

OBJECTIVES: Good interprofessional communication is fundamental to effective teamworking in medicine. Finalmed is a private course that teaches the principles and methods of clinical presenting as an iterative technique of reasoning though clinical data. We have tested the efficacy of this technique using a questionnaire-based study. DESIGN: An anonymized 10-point Likert scale questionnaire was designed. SETTING: Questionnaires were distributed at five UK courses and two UAE courses. PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaires were given to all students attending these courses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire included pre- and post-course questions addressing self-reported confidence in clinical presenting (CCP) and effectiveness in clinical presenting (ECP). We also asked whether attendees felt that clinical presenting should be integrated formally into medical school curricula. RESULTS: A total of 331/395 questionnaires were returned. Median improvement in CCP was 50% (P < 0.0001) and in ECP was 40% (P < 0.0001), irrespective of country of study, graduate entry status and whether the student felt that they had been exposed to these techniques previously. Students recorded a strong opinion in favour of integrating the content and style of the Finalmed course into their medical school curriculum, with 286 students (86%) recording a score of ≥8. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that after a two- or three-day dedicated course, both self-reported confidence and effectiveness in clinical presenting significantly improve. Furthermore, students in the UK and the UAE returned a desire for integration into medical school curricula of IPC through the teaching of clinical presenting

Fundamental Reform of Payment for Adult Primary Care: Comprehensive Payment for Comprehensive Care

Primary care is essential to the effective and efficient functioning of health care delivery systems, yet there is an impending crisis in the field due in part to a dysfunctional payment system. We present a fundamentally new model of payment for primary care, replacing encounter-based imbursement with comprehensive payment for comprehensive care. Unlike former iterations of primary care capitation (which simply bundled inadequate fee-for-service payments), our comprehensive payment model represents new investment in adult primary care, with substantial increases in payment over current levels. The comprehensive payment is directed to practices to include support for the modern systems and teams essential to the delivery of comprehensive, coordinated care. Income to primary physicians is increased commensurate with the high level of responsibility expected. To ensure optimal allocation of resources and the rewarding of desired outcomes, the comprehensive payment is needs/risk-adjusted and performance-based. Our model establishes a new social contract with the primary care community, substantially increasing payment in return for achieving important societal health system goals, including improved accessibility, quality, safety, and efficiency. Attainment of these goals should help offset and justify the costs of the investment. Field tests of this and other new models of payment for primary care are urgently needed

Antibiotics for coughing in general practice: a questionnaire study to quantify and condense the reasons for prescribing

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are being overprescribed in ambulant care, especially for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Gaining insight into the actual reasons for prescribing remains important for the design of effective strategies to optimise antibiotic prescribing. We aimed to determine items of importance for the antibiotic prescribing decision and to make them operational for an intervention trial. METHODS: A postal questionnaire based upon focus group findings was sent to 316 Flemish general practitioners (GPs). On a verbal rating scale the GPs scored to what extent they consider the questionnaire items in decision making in case of suspected RTI in a coughing patient and how strongly the items support or counter antibiotic treatment. Factor analysis was used to condense the data. The relative importance of the yielded operational factors was assessed using Wilcoxon Matched Pairs test. RESULTS: 59.5% completed the study. Response group characteristics (mean age: 42.8 years; 65.9% men) approximated that of all Flemish GPs. Participants considered all the items included in the questionnaire: always the operational factor 'lung auscultation', often 'whether or not there is something unusual happening' – both medical reasons – and to a lesser extent 'non-medical reasons' (P < 0.001). Non-medical as well as medical reasons support antibiotic treatment, but non-medical reasons to a lesser extent (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study quantified, condensed and confirmed the findings of previous focus group research. Practice guidelines and interventions to optimise antibiotic prescribing have to take non-medical reasons into account

GPs' opinions of public and industrial information regarding drugs: a cross-sectional study

Background: General Practitioners {GP} in Sweden prescribe more than 50% of all prescriptions. Scientific knowledge on the opinions of GPs regarding drug information has been sparse. Such knowledge could be valuable when designing evidence-based drug information to GPs. GPs' opinions on public- and industry-provided drug information are presented in this article. Methods: A cross-sectional study using a questionnaire was answered by 368 GPs at 97 primary-health care centres {PHCC}. The centres were invited to participate by eight out of 29 drug and therapeutic committees {DTCs}. A multilevel model was used to analyse associations between opinions of GPs regarding drug information and whether the GPs worked in public sector or in a private enterprise, their age, sex, and work experience. PHCC and geographical area were included as random effects. Results: About 85% of the GPs perceived they received too much information from the industry, that the quality of public information was high and useful, and that the main task of public authorities was to increase the GPs' knowledge of drugs. Female GPs valued information from public authorities to a much greater extent than male GPs. Out of the GPs, 93% considered the main task of the industry was to promote sales. Differences between the GPs' opinions between PHCCs were generally more visible than differences between areas. Conclusions: Some kind of incentives could be considered for PHCCs that actively reduce drug promotion from the industry. That female GPs valued information from public authorities to a much greater extent than male GPs should be taken into consideration when designing evidence-based drug information from public authorities to make implementation easier

Values clarification in a decision aid about fertility preservation: does it add to information provision?

Background We aimed to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (DA) with information only compared to a DA with values clarification exercise (VCE), and to study the role of personality and information seeking style in DA-use, decisional conflict (DC) and knowledge. Methods Two scenario-based experiments were conducted with two different groups of healthy female participants. Dependent measures were: DC, knowledge, and DA-use (time spent, pages viewed, VCE used). Respondents were randomized between a DA with information only (VCE-) and a DA with information plus a VCE(VCE+) (experiment 1), or between information only (VCE-), information plus VCE without referral to VCE(VCE+), and information plus a VCE with specific referral to the VCE, requesting participants to use the VCE(VCE++) (experiment 2). In experiment 2 we additionally measured personality (neuroticism/conscientiousness) and information seeking style (monitoring/blunting). Results Experiment 1. There were no differences in DC, knowledge or DA-use between VCE- (n=70) and VCE+ (n=70). Both DAs lead to a mean gain in knowledge from 39% at baseline to 73% after viewing the DA. Within VCE+, VCE-users (n=32, 46%) reported less DC compared to non-users. Since there was no difference in DC between VCE- and VCE+, this is likely an effect of VCE-use in a self-selected group, and not of the VCE per se. Experiment 2. There were no differences in DC or knowledge between VCE- (n=65), VCE+ (n=66), VCE++ (n=66). In all groups, knowledge increased on average from 42% at baseline to 72% after viewing the DA. Blunters viewed fewer DA-pages (R=0.38, p<.001). More neurotic women were less certain (R=0.18, p<.01) and felt less supported in decision making (R=0.15, p<.05); conscientious women felt more certain (R=-0.15, p<.05) and had more knowledge after viewing the DA (R=0.15, p<.05). Conclusions Both DAs lead to increased knowledge in healthy populations making hypothetical decisions, and use of the VCE did not improve knowledge or DC. Personality characteristics were associated to some extent with DA-use, information seeking styles with aspects of DC. More research is needed to make clear recommendations regarding the need for tailoring of information provision to personality characteristics, and to assess the effect of VCE use in actual patients